The effect of a clinical medical librarian on in-patient care outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The research sought to determine the effect of a clinical medical librarian (CML) on outcomes of in-patients on the internal medicine service. METHODS: A prospective study was performed with two internal medicine in-patient teams. Team 1 included a CML who accompanied the team on daily rounds. The CML answered questions posed at the point of care immediately or in emails post-rounds. Patients on Team 2, which did not include a CML, as well as patients who did not require consultation by the CML on Team 1, served as the control population. Numerous clinical and library metrics were gathered on each question. RESULTS: Patients on Team 1 who required an answer to a clinical question were more ill and had a longer length of stay, higher costs, and higher readmission rates compared to those in the control group. Using a matched pair analysis, we showed no difference in clinical outcomes between the intervention group and the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest attempt to prospectively measure changes in patient outcomes when physicians were accompanied by a CML on rounds. This approach may serve as a model for further studies to define when and how CMLs are most effective.

Literacy barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community clinics.

This article examines the relationship between literacy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, beliefs, and experiences, with a focus on fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). Participants were 975 patients in 8 Louisiana federally qualified health centers. Participants were 50 years of age or older and not up to date with CRC screening; approximately half (52%) had low literacy (less than a 9th-grade level). Participants with low literacy were less likely than were those with adequate literacy to be aware of advertisements promoting CRC screening (58.7% vs. 76.3%, p < .0001) or to believe it was very helpful to find CRC early (74.5% vs. 91.9%, p < .0001). The majority of participants had positive beliefs about the benefits of CRC screening using FOBTs. Participants with low literacy had more perceived barriers to FOBT completion and were more likely to strongly agree or agree that FOBTs would be confusing, embarrassing, or a lot of trouble; however, none of these remained significant in multivariate analyses controlling for relevant covariates. Confidence in being able to obtain an FOBT kit was high among those with low and adequate literacy (89.8% vs. 93.1%, respectively, p = .20); yet multivariate analyses revealed a significant difference in regard to literacy (p = .04) with low-literacy participants indicating less confidence. There was no significant difference by literacy in ever receiving a physician recommendation for CRC screening (38.4% low vs. 39.0% adequate, p = .79); however, multivariate analyses revealed significant differences in FOBT completion by literacy (p = .036). Overall, findings suggest that literacy is a factor in patients' CRC knowledge, beliefs, and confidence in obtaining a FOBT.